The production of a television program comprises complex undertaking. Traditional methods require the cooperation and coordination of talent and technical staff, using a wide range of audio and video equipment. This is particularly apparent in the production of a television news program. Such programs are generally produced “live” and embody multiple pre-recorded elements, one or more live presenters, and complex production effects that contribute to the flow and interest level of the program. Many television organizations produce news broadcasts, and such organizations strongly compete to attract and retain the maximum number of viewers. Most viewers want fast-paced news programs that make use sophisticated production techniques for audio and video including, for example, complex visual effects. Such complexity requires a large number of equipment operators, thus increasing the likelihood of mistakes during production. For these reasons, there have been a large number of attempts to automate the process to some degree, and to provide improved user interfaces that simplify the tasks of the operators. U.S. Pat. No. 5,115,310 (Takano et al) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,892,507 (Moorby et al) represent past attempts to add the elements of automation and improved user interface to the television production process.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,452,612 (Holtz et al) best exemplifies the state of the prior art of automated television production systems. Holtz et al describe a system that allows pre-programming of most of the complex actions required for a television program, and particularly, a news program, thus minimizing the work required by operators during production. The Holtz et al system makes use of a time line. Each event, defined as a change in the status of, or any new command to, any piece of production equipment, receives an allocated slot on the timeline. Upon actuation of a timer, a processor executes each event at its designated time on the time line, thus allowing completion of the event within the allocated time. The Holtz et al. patent, characterizes events as “transition macros” and each such transition macro can include a number of individual timed production activities such as an audio fade or a video wipe, for example.
Executing such transition macros automatically without interruption can present certain difficulties for a production that includes live talent. A person reading a script typically will do so at slightly different speeds at different times. For that reason, the time required for reading of a particular item “on air” will likely differ to some degree from the time recorded during rehearsals. Unpredictable events, such as a cough or stumbling over a word, add to the uncertainty of the actual event time during live production. With experienced talent, the differences, while small, remain sufficiently significant to make a simple automatic timeline-driven system unsatisfactory. Television viewers have a high sensitivity to imperfections such as clipped words or inappropriate pauses. Any program that exhibits such problems likely would not retain its audience over a long period of time. A high-quality production requires manual triggering of events in response to the actual timing as determined by live performers and other factors. In their patent, Holtz et al address this problem by introducing “step marks” or “pause events.” for insertion in the timeline. A pause event effectively defeats the automatic triggering of a subsequent event, by interrupting execution of the timer.
Within the Holtz et al. system, stored events refer only to a single controlled device. If a new program segment requires, for example, a video switcher selection, fade-up of a different microphone, and zoom of a camera lens, programming of these events must occur separately to accomplish a transition to the new segment. Other program transitions can have much more complexity than this simple example and will require creation of a larger number of events.
Programming of complex transition typically involves many separate events. Given that a typical television production system usually includes a large number of separate devices, arranging all of events needed to accomplish a transition to achieve a particular scene for transmission often proves problematical. Selecting among the many individual operations of each of the various pieces of production equipment takes significant time, making programming an arduous task.
In practice, the change from one program segment to the next will typically require simultaneous or closely coordinated changes in many of the controlled devices. Advantageously, the system of Holtz et al provides one or more Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) for controlling one or more devices, obviating the need to provide large and complex control panels that are normally used to control devices such as video switchers, audio mixers, and digital effects devices. However, this approach also incurs limitations. GUIs do not always constitute the preferred user interface for adjusting critical controls. Many operations, particularly on video equipment, require that the operator view the result of control adjustment on a video screen, while adjusting the control, but operation of the GUI frequently requires that the operator look at the GUI rather than the video image. There are many other circumstances where the “feel” of a physical control is preferred to use of a GUI.
Within the Holtz et al system, all dynamic transitions, such as video wipes, audio fades, etc., require pre-programming under the control of the program timer. However, to achieve a high quality television production, sometimes, the operator will need to change the speed of such a transition, or slightly offset the video and audio transitions. Such a refinement can occur only if the operator has access to the physical controls of the various pieces of production equipment during production. However, as discussed above, the physical control panels normally supplied with such equipments are large and complex, and it is not generally practical for a single person to be responsible for operation of an array of such control panels. The drawbacks associated with present day production equipment, as discussed above, typically preclude a single operator from handling all of the controls of an array of control panels needed to effect the desired offset.
International Patent Publication WO 99/0581 describes a machine control system for controlling various pieces of equipment for producing a television news broadcast. The system includes a director work station connects to a server linked to one or more external production devices. A director uses the work station by selecting one or more events, causing the server to communicate information to the production devices to execute such events. A graphical user interface provides a display of the status of the various production devices. The machine control system of WO 99/0581, like that of the system of Holtz et al. also suffers from the disadvantage of precluding a single operator from handling all of the controls of an array of control panels needed to effect the desired offset.
Thus, a need exists for a television production technique that overcomes the aforementioned disadvantages.